2. What is the Counsel General's legal analysis of the measures contained in the UK Internal Market Bill as they relate to Wales? OQ55533

The UK Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Bill goes far beyond the structure that might be needed to ensure economic and regulatory co-operation between the nations of the UK, and is a serious assault on the devolution settlement and our powers in Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer and I do agree with him. Counsel General, last week, you told me that the Welsh Government was prepared to work with others in the UK Parliament in order to protect Welsh democracy from this power grab that is inherent in the internal market Bill, as you've just alluded to, and I welcome that. Working in a cross-legislature way will be vital in the coming period, so, today, Plaid Cymru MPs will be bringing forward an amendment that would mean that this Senedd would have to give its consent before the provisions in the Bill that are designed to transfer devolved powers back to Westminster—before that comes into force. Does the Welsh Government support the intention behind that amendment, and if so, will you persuade your Welsh Labour colleagues in Westminster to support it this afternoon?

Well, I haven't seen the text of that amendment. Our position as a Government is that there should be no transfer of powers, come what may, from this Senedd to Westminster. So, it's a very simple proposition. I was very pleased to see that, on the vote at the start of last week, both my party in Parliament and hers and others in this Chamber were able to stand clear in their rejection of the principles that are at the heart of this Bill. As she knows from the discussions we've previously had, there are many ways in which this Bill cuts across profoundly the devolution settlement and locks in those changes in a way that this Senedd would not be able to reverse. So, I do welcome the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis in Parliament and I very much hope that that continues.

I wonder if the Counsel General and Minister could outline the legal and constitutional consequences of this Chamber, Siambr, not giving its consent to this Bill being railroaded forward by the UK Government. And, could he also explain why this should matter profoundly to the businesses, the farmers, the food producers, the students and the constituents in a constituency like mine of Ogmore?

Well, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that question. This Senedd, I have no expectation that it will do anything other, in my own view, than reject the consent for this piece of legislation. That ought to be the end of the matter; the UK Government ought, then, not to proceed with the legislation. Huw will recall, as will other Members, that when this Senedd last withheld its consent and the UK Government proceeded notwithstanding that, we received clear assurances from the UK Government that it regarded those circumstances as unique and extraordinary. And in light of that, I think the UK Government could not justify proceeding in the absence of the consent of the devolved legislatures in relation to this piece of legislation.

He is right to raise the point that this is a Bill that has a real impact on the daily lives of citizens, businesses and organisations in Wales. Any consumer who doesn't want to see hormone-injected beef on our shelves, who wants to see a Welsh Government ambitious to limit the use of single-use plastics and to maintain high standards in building construction and the regulation of landlords, and wants to make sure that the kind of ambition that the people of Wales have voted for continues to be available should be concerned about the provisions of this Bill. Any business in Wales that wants a floor of standards against which it can measure its production and supply should be concerned. Any business seeking to reconcile the UK Government seeking for itself state-aid powers, whilst also having obligations to businesses in England as the Government of England, and the conflict of interest that that so obviously presents, should be concerned by the contents of this Bill.

It is clear that the UK wishes to plough ahead and intentionally break international agreements, whilst simultaneously hiding the Bill's true intent, to attempt to take back control of this democratic place, but with a new ability to top-slice the budget of Wales for Tory priorities. What would this mean for the programme of government that the people of Wales have democratically elected this Government to carry out on their behalf? Would he agree with me that this demands renewed concern around the distribution of the shared prosperity fund and is, at its heart, an attack on this democracy, devolution, and, Llywydd, an attack on this place?

Well, the Bill, if passed into law, would constrain the actions not only of this Government, but successive Welsh Governments, and, indeed, the effectiveness of this Senedd to make the kind of ambitious changes in law and reform in Wales that it would wish to make. I mentioned in my earlier question the very practical ways in which this affects consumers and citizens right across Wales. Some of the provisions in the Bill are at odds with the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some wouldn't prevent the Senedd from passing laws or Ministers making regulations, but would effectively mean they couldn't be enforced on the ground in Wales. Now, these are changes that run the serious risk of limiting the actions of this Government and future Governments to fulfil manifesto pledges and to be ambitious on behalf of the people of Wales. She identifies in particular the impact on the shared prosperity fund. I think UK Government Ministers have been pretty upfront about the fact that the provisions in the Bill would provide UK Government Ministers with the powers to circumvent powers that effectively have been those of Welsh Ministers to manage the successor programmes to EU programmes in Wales—a clear breach of the commitment made not to reverse the devolution settlement and the powers of the Welsh Government in relation to those successor programmes. 

Questions 3 [OQ55549] and 4 [OQ55531] are withdrawn. Question 5—Janet Finch-Saunders.